Posted on 11/01/2003 4:14:09 AM PST by I Am Not A Mod
AUSTIN -- Texas will be under the microscope this week in the fight over teaching evolution in public schools as the State Board of Education votes on adopting biology textbooks that have been at the center of the debate.
The board meets Thursday and Friday and is set to consider proposed changes submitted by 11 publishers. The board's decisions -- which could determine which textbooks publishers offer to dozens of states -- will end a review process that has been marked by months of heated debate over the theory of evolution.
Religious activists and proponents of alternative science urged publishers to revise some of the 10th-grade books and want the board to reject others, saying they contain factual errors regarding the theory of evolution. Mainstream scientists assert that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a cornerstone of modern research and technology.
Board members can only vote to reject books based on factual errors or failure to follow state curriculum as mandated by the Legislature.
"There's a bait and switch going on here because the critics want the textbooks to question whether evolution occurred. And of course they don't because scientists don't question whether evolution occurred," said Eugenie Scott, executive director of the California-based National Center for Science Education.
Among those questioning the textbooks are about 60 biologists from around the country who signed a "statement of dissent" about teaching evolution and said both sides of the issue should be taught. Several religious leaders also testified against teaching evolution.
Any changes to the textbooks will have implications across the country.
Texas is the nation's second largest buyer of textbooks, and books sold in the state are often marketed by publishers nationwide. Texas, California and Florida account for more than 30 percent of the nation's $4 billion public school book market. Three dozen publishers invest millions of dollars in Texas.
One of the most vocal advocates of changing the textbooks is the Discovery Institute, a nonprofit think tank based in Seattle. Institute officials have argued at board hearings that alternatives to commonly accepted theories of evolution should be included in textbooks to comply with a state requirement that both strengths and weaknesses are presented.
"These things are widely criticized as being problematic. They aren't criticisms we made up; they're criticisms widely held in the scientific community," said Discovery Institute fellow John West.
Steven Schafersman, president of Texas Citizens for Science, said there are no weaknesses in current textbooks' explanation of evolution. Publishers are required to cover evolution in science books.
The institute has referred to a theory dubbed intelligent design -- a belief that life did not evolve randomly but progressed according to a plan or design. No book on the mainstream market presents the intelligent design theory of evolution.
"We know that this is a very contentious issue. We know that, but the sorts of things we were proposing we thought were moderate," West said.
Samantha Smoot, executive director of the Texas Freedom Network, which monitors religious activists, argues that the Discovery Institute's arguments are rooted in religion. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1962 that the teaching of creationism in public schools is a violation of the separation of church and state.
"It says that the theory of evolution can't explain the diversity of life on this planet and that there must have been a designer," Smoot said. "That is a very valid and commonly held religious perspective, but not one that is upheld by scientific evidence. Therefore it's not one that belongs in science classrooms."
The Discovery Institute has maintained that its arguments have no religious foundation, but Smoot disagrees.
"The concept of intelligent design was crafted specifically to get around legal prohibitions against teaching religion in public schools," she said. "And as long as proponents of intelligent design deny that they're referring to God when they talk about the designer, they hope to be able to pull this off."
At least one publisher has submitted changes in line with the institute's recommendations.
Holt, Rinehart & Winston has submitted a change that directs students to "study hypotheses for the origin of life that are alternatives" to the others in the book. Students also are encouraged to research alternative theories on the Internet.
"The concept of intelligent design was crafted specifically to get around legal prohibitions against teaching religion in public schools,"
Well, of course. Evolution should be taught as theory rather than fact, but intelligent design by whatever name should be left to religious training.
Some of the data is the data of fact that there is no possible way that the number of life forms we have on this planet and the number of positive "mutations" that would have had to take place are even remotely possible. You want to talk about faith. It takes much less faith to belive in God than it does to buy the outlandish "hey, I need to reproduce, I think I will grow a dingle" sequence.
you 're comfortable with that gobble - gobble - turkey !
Of course not. One need not be an atheist to be willing to follow data whereever it leads.
Okay, but a negative such as that does not answer questions with data. As I said, evolution is a theory, imo, not a proven.
Well then, what's the problem for these lefties? Darwin was very definitely a creationist.
To: f.Christian
Dakmar...
I took a few minutes to decipher that post, and I must say I agree with a lot of what you said.
fC...
These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!
Dakmar...
Where you and I diverge is on the Evolution/Communism thing. You seem to view Darwin and evolution as the beginning of the end for enlighted, moral civilization, while I think Marx, class struggle, and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" are the true dangers.
God bless you, I think we both have a common enemy in the BRAVE-NWO.
452 posted on 9/7/02 8:54 PM Pacific by Dakmar
This is one of the anti-Evolutionists' favorite straw men to bash: "Evolution hasn't been proven." But it is based on a misnomer.
What is not well-known outside of science is that scientific theories are NEVER proven. The reason is that since all it takes to refute one is a single counter example, and since there are virtually an unlimited number of potential "test cases" for most theories, it is impossible to exhaustively exclude every one of them.
Therefore, all scientific theories are held tentatively, based upon their ability to withstand attempted falsification: the more attempted falsifications, the more strongly the theory is held to likely be correct.
This is why it is a requirement for a theory to make "useful predictions" in order to be considered "scientific" -- because the theory that makes NO predictions cannot be tested or falsified, even in principle. Similarly, theories that are consistent with ALL possible outcomes are similarly "unfalsifiable" and are thus not "scientific" theories. Examples would be Creationism ("That's just the way God did it!") and it's kissing cousin so-called Intelligent Design Theory (The designer designed it that way!") Neither one can be falsified, even in principle, because they are compatible with virtually ANY possible data.
Science embraces the Theory of Evolution tentatively, just as it embraces the Theory of Gravitation tentatively. And as for that other anti-Evo canard: "Evolution isn't falsifiable!" I respectfully suggest that discovering widespread mammalian fossils in the pre-Cambrian strata is just ONE example of data that would turn the Theory of Evolution on it's head.
Why? If intelligent design fits the data, why not allow it as a hypothesis?
Because it fits all data, so it serves no explanatory purpose. Nothing will ever contradict ID. It can't be falsified. It's scientifically useless. Pleasant concept, however. But it's not science.
The ID people are doing a fantastic job of proving that there is no God. That may not be their goal, but it is what they are doing.
Those of us who do believe in God, have enjoying this debate. It teaches us how religions can be distorted for political gains, by false profits who have a vested interest in deception.
Science is the understanding of how God did it. To the mind of an ID person, they are trying to invalidate everything that God has shown us.
I find that rather sad.
What do you mean it fits all data? I can say my car is designed. That fits all data, but it is a fact. If only because I have the testimony of the car dealer and news organizations. Should science be in the business of disallowing facts or theories, simply because it fits?
What do you mean it serves no explanatory purpose? Design works as an explanation in the car example, why not with life? Does either evolution or ID really offer that much in the form of an explanatory purpose? Neither really advances our understanding of anything useful. Advances in biology, genetics, microbiology, etc, could all have come with either or neither of the two theories. Because advances in both are from observations at a lower level. Does faith in evolution advance my doctor's ability to treat the human body? Not one iota. Does it advance my ability to train my dog? Again, not one iota. Name one useful thing that evolution has added to science that couldn't have been discovered in the absence of the theory.
It can't be falsified. It's scientifically useless.
Can't you really say the same thing about evolution? Even when the evidence contradicts evolution, evolutionists just blindly say, there must be some "natural" explanation. Isn't that the same as the creationist saying, there could be either a "natural" or "supernatural" explanation? Does either really contribute to science? But aren't both equally valid theories on our origins?
Isn't that statement itself a statement of "faith", not data?
LOL! The hominid tree is from Science Made Stupid. More:
Well I looked at the website, but I'm not impressed. While being far from an expert, I understand that the whale ancestor is based on a fossil fragment that is disputed as a bonified evolutionary fossil. So how many other of those "predictions" are either bogus or made to fit the facts?
ID makes predictions too. I posted that table in the last thread and at least 3 or the 4 predictions, the theory of Design fit better than the theory of evolution.
For part of his life, he was. But he abandonded special creation some time in his mid-thirties, and the idea of mediated creation some time later during middle age.
No, they (there are a number of ancestral whales showing gradual adaptation from land to sea) are not disputed as "bonified" whales (or proto-whales) by qualified experts. What you may be thinking of is a fit of what can only be described as panic-induced-extreme-stupidity by creationist Duane Gish, following the discovery that the long known archaeoceticean (early whale) Basilosaurus isis had rear limbs. Gish suggested not only that Basilosaurus wasn't really a whale, but that it wasn't even a mammal! Apparently this made him feel better as marine reptiles with rear limbs were already known. However Basilosaurus was unquestionably both a mammal and a whale, and several other fossil whales have since been discovered that have even better developed legs.
The falsifiable part of ID is where someone says that a specific organ (or whatever) cannot have evolved. That claim is falsified whenever an evolutionary path is demonstrated. If it could have evolved, than it can't be irreducibly complex. Otherwise, when we say that ID isn't falsifiable, we mean that every species one can point to will be said to be just what the designer had in mind. What kind of theory is that? Everything fits. Nothing is excluded. So in that sense it has no scientific value at all. Unlike evolution, where (to use the commonly given example) a mammal fossil in the pre-Cambrian period would definitely falsify the theory.
"Take a look at this website" Well I looked at the website, but I'm not impressed.
I figured that.
While being far from an expert, I understand that the whale ancestor is based on a fossil fragment that is disputed as a bonified evolutionary fossil. So how many other of those "predictions" are either bogus or made to fit the facts?
You tell me. I don't think that one is bogus. But scientists make mistakes. And admit them. If there's confusion about whale ancestry, and there may be, it will get sorted out. This doesn't affect evolution. It's a detail. There are many such that haven't yet been worked out.
ID makes predictions too. I posted that table in the last thread and at least 3 or the 4 predictions, the theory of Design fit better than the theory of evolution.
I missed that. If you could re-post it, I'll comment.
It appears that columns 2 and 3 in the last row are reversed and that row should probably go to descent, although descent is losing ground in that row with more functionality being ascribed to DNA previously labeled as "junk".
Line of Evidence |
Prediction of descent |
Prediction from design |
Data |
Best explaining theory: |
1. Biochemical complexity |
High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will NOT be found. |
High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found. |
High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures are commonly found. |
Design. |
2. Fossil Record |
Forms will appear in the fossil record as a gradual progression with transitional series. |
Forms will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without any precursors. |
Forms tend to appear in the fossil record suddenly and without any precursors. |
Design. |
3. Distribution of Molecular and Morphological Characteristics |
Genes and functional parts will reflect those inherited through ancestry, and are only shared by related organisms. |
Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms. |
Genes and functional parts often are not distributed in a manner predicted by ancestry, and are often found in clearly unrelated organisms. |
Design. |
4. Genetic Code |
The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA." |
The genetic code will contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA." |
Increased knowledge of genetices has created a strong trend towards functionality for "junk-DNA"; examples of DNA of unknown function persist, but function can be expected or explained under a design pardigm. |
Design. |
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
